9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Development Officer by the Life Insurance Corporation of India ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not allowing deduction of 50 per cent. as expenditure out of incentive bonus paid to the assessee by the Life Insurance Corporation of India ? " The assessee was working as the Development Officer in the office of the Life Insurance Corporation at Sri Ganganagar. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee, in addition to the other remunerations, received incentive bonus from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He claimed deduction to the extent of 50 per cent. on this amount of incentive bonus received by him from the Life Insurance Corporat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned in the application for the opinion of this court and the Tribunal, by its order dated May 31, 1993, referred the questions of law mentioned in paragraph 1 (at page 24) of this judgment for the opinion of this court. A similar controversy on identical facts came up for consideration before this court in D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 8 of 1992 CIT v. Shiv Raj Bhatia [1997] 227 ITR 7, decided on May 1, 1996. The controversy involved in the present case as well as in the case of Shiv Raj Batia [1997] 227 ITR 7 was : whether the incentive bonus received by the assessee, Shiv Raj Bhatia, who was also working as the Development Officer, from the Life Insurance Corporation of India, is part of the "salary" or is it the income from busine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lopment Officer is not a personal gift but is paid as a remuneration for his services as an employee and, therefore, it forms part of the 'salary'. Thus, the incentive bonus is part of the salary of the assessee and is exigible to tax and the assessee is entitled only for the standard deduction permissible under section 16 of the Income-tax Act." The two questions of law referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court, mentioned in paragraph 1 (page 24) above, are identical to those which were referred in Shiv Raj Bhatia's case [1997] 227 ITR 7 (Raj). The facts of this case are also identical with the facts of Shiv Raj Bhatia's case [1997] 227 ITR 7, who was also a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
